Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC > > 7950. > > > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a > > standards > > > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative text, > > > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior. > > > > > > > RFC 8174: > > > > o These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not > > required. Specifically, normative text does not require the use > > of these key words. They are used for clarity and consistency > > when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not > > use them and is still normative. > > > > > So what? > Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms. > This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case.
Actually, section 5.1 XPath Context in the revised datastore draft uses the same language as section 6.4.1 XPath Context in RFC 7950. In fact, the text in the draft is copied (and adjusted) from RFC 7950. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
